is this legal?

[td873]

Without question, it is illegal. Splitting hairs and looking for alternate definitions still won't make it legal. It's not what the equipment was intended to do.

What if you mounted a bridge head to the middle of the stick? The rules don't say where the bridge head has to be mounted. So if you had a portable bridge head and some rubber bands, you could avoid "splitting hairs"?

No alternate definitions necessary...

-td

 

[alphadog]

Pink tip on his cue, a glove, a spotted white, a big cheesy smile..

I smell a rat

Sorry to burst your bubble. Guy is rock solid.

? Is legitamate.

 

[FranCrimi]

What if you mounted a bridge head to the middle of the stick? The rules don't say where the bridge head has to be mounted. So if you had a portable bridge head and some rubber bands, you could avoid "splitting hairs"?

No alternate definitions necessary...

-td

The bridge head was intended to be placed at the end of the stick.

 

[FranCrimi]

As I noted above, the problem starts when the room/TD/promoter fail to provide adequate bridges. Many rooms only have the metal-head bridges with the flash unsmoothed and ready to gouge into your shaft if you are careless enough to use such a bridge. I like the Russo bridge mentioned earlier but they are scarce.

If the management has failed to provide proper bridges, I personally have no problem with what the OP showed except for the chalk.

I once gouged my shaft in a WPBA tournament, thanks to a poorly made metal bridge head supplied by the promoter. However, I blamed myself because I forgot my bridge head at home.

Bridge heads are inexpensive and every player should keep one in their case. While I understand your point, I still don't think that the rule of using equipment for the reason it was intended should be broken because management failed to provide certain equipment.

 

[hang-the-9]

The cue is ultimately supported (on his hand), so there is an argument that the cue is being supported. There is no language that says the cue must be "directly" supported. So this "indirect" supporting doesn't seem too far afoul of this portion of the rule.

-td

That is silly. If we interpet the rules like lawers we'll have a 300 page rule book. It should be pretty simple, if the bridge is not used like your hand (meaning on the playing surface or the rail with the cue holder end being used to support the stick), it should not be allowed.

 

[hang-the-9]

If I'm the ref, I would allow the unusual use of the bridge, but not the chalk. I've seen bridges used in some crazy but effective ways.

I know you ran a lot of tournaments and were probably a ref in many as well, but this suprizes me that you would allow the brigde to be used like this.

It's not being used as support for the cue as you would with your own hand, it's being used to support the hand. It would be like asking a bystander to hold my hand up a bit to help me hold it steady.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... It would be like asking a bystander to hold my hand up a bit to help me hold it steady.

Almost like asking the ref to hold the light out of the way while you shoot a masse shot.

 

[hang-the-9]

Almost like asking the ref to hold the light out of the way while you shoot a masse shot.

Ah, but I am pretty sure that is in the rules as allowable

Probably since there is no standard for light height and the light is not part of the playing equipmetn setup, so lifting it out of the way is not messing with the standard equipment setup. Why be penalized if someone hung the lights low. It would be like not allowing someone to close a shade if the light from the sun was in their eyes.

 

[krupa]

So to the OP... what was the context of this shot? Tournament? League? if League, which one?

I came across this tidbit when looking up a different rule for BCAPL:

10. Mechanical Bridges
The primary consideration for determining whether a mechanical bridge is legal is that it supports the cue, as opposed to elevating the bridge hand above the bed of the table or significantly enhancing the stability of the hand holding the bridge.

 

[JC]

I have no idea what he's shooting at down table but any experienced player should have no trouble bridging over those two object balls from that shot angle with their hand.

The pink ferule says it all. Drama queen looking for attention. Now he's got it, here on AZ.

JC

 

[Old Nine Baller]

Guy lays bridge across table with cube of chalk under the butt end.
Then uses shaft of bridge to rest his bridge hand on.

It's legal if he's gambling with me. I wouldn't care if he brought in an overhead crane to support his shaft BUT I draw the line at that thing on his left hand. That's gotta go.

ONB

 

[alphadog]

So to the OP... what was the context of this shot? Tournament? League? if League, which one?

I came across this tidbit when looking up a different rule for BCAPL:

Thanks for posting this. As it is written it would be illegal.

We are playing 1hole on a private table. We try and play within world standard rules.

 

[nplum24]

I ref once told me "placing a bridge down on the table unattended was a foul".?

 

[Nostroke]

As I noted above, the problem starts when the room/TD/promoter fail to provide adequate bridges. Many rooms only have the metal-head bridges with the flash unsmoothed and ready to gouge into your shaft if you are careless enough to use such a bridge. I like the Russo bridge mentioned earlier but they are scarce.

If the management has failed to provide proper bridges, I personally have no problem with what the OP showed except for the chalk.

Without the chalk, the bridge shaft just crashes into the balls i would think.

 

[AtLarge]

I know you ran a lot of tournaments and were probably a ref in many as well, but this suprizes me that you would allow the brigde to be used like this.

It's not being used as support for the cue as you would with your own hand, it's being used to support the hand. It would be like asking a bystander to hold my hand up a bit to help me hold it steady.

I agree. This sentence from the WPA rules has already been quoted in this thread: "The equipment must be used only for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended." And here is corroborating language from the WPA equipment specs:

"18. Mechanical Bridge
The mechanical bridge, also called rake, crutch or rest, is an accessory of the billiard sports table and consists of a stick with a bridge head mounted at its end to support the shaft of the cue stick replacing the hand bridge during shots difficult to reach. The stick or handle of the mechanical bridge is very similar in shape to the cue stick. The bridge
head has notches or grooves, usually at various heights, in which the cue shaft can rest. The contour of the bridge head should be smooth in order not to mar the cue shaft or rip the threads of the table-cloth when being used."

Note the portion that I made blue.

Were I the ref, in a match using WPA rules, using the mechanical bridge in the manner pictured at the start of this thread would not be legal.

 

[Eric.]

The cue is ultimately supported (on his hand), so there is an argument that the cue is being supported. There is no language that says the cue must be "directly" supported. So this "indirect" supporting doesn't seem too far afoul of this portion of the rule.

-td

IF they only knew what you do for a living...


Eric >not debating with TD

 

[sbpoolleague]

Not in the BCA

I ref once told me "placing a bridge down on the table unattended was a foul".?

In the BCAPL that is not a foul. Neither is letting go of the cue stick while lining up a shot.

However I am quite certain that Bill Stock would consider this hand-propping-on-the-bridge a foul (and probably unsportsmanlike conduct as well).